Things I believe for no reason Vol II, Chap II (rewritten to incoporate the philosophy meme)

[jack]

If you've been paying attention to memes recently, you'll see one that tries to classify people into utilitarians, hedonists, etc.

However, when you read desriptions of these philosophies, they're almost always paired with hypothetical examples where the philosophy doesn't apply, is contradictory, or contradicts what we innately feel is the right answer[1].

(1) I propose that instead of being a fault in the individual philosophy, this is because no described philosophy can in fact always agree with what we innately feel is the right answer[2]. They can be a good approximation to it though, as shown by most philosophies agreeing with each other most of the time[3].

I say accept that no fixed rule will suffice, and instead have a number of rules[4] which different people place different weights on. Then most of the philosophies mentioned are a statement of one rule, and attempted derivations of the other rules from it.

In most cases only one rule applies so most people agree, and any philsophy is fine. In awkward situations two rules conflict, and different people and different philosophies choose different ways.

(2) Secondly, I'd go further and say our innate feelings of what is right don't form a consistent or complete system. I'd like it if they did, but feel they don't for two reasons.

Firstly, I see no reason it should, as I don't have any reason to believe in a universal morality or a god who might dictate one. Of course, many of you will disagree with this.

Secondly, some of the *very* awkward and contrived hypothetical examples seem to have no good answer[5] even without trying to apply a philosophy, which suggests to me that some situations genuinely don't really have a best answer, so no system is complete and we have to work round that.

End note. In contrast to the last chapter, I expect this one to be controversial. Though knowing fate's sense of irony probably everyone will agree and not bother to post :)

[1] Eg. Utilitarianism: it might be for the greatest good to hang an innocent man as an example, which most people would object to. It's possible to get round this by including the chance of discovery and the ensuing disatisfaction, but it's not really possible to *quantitatively* compare goodnesses in that way.

[2] *Should* it agree? I'd say yes -- how else do you decide what philosophy to adopt? OTOH, some people would object: (1) The philosophy might illustrate consequences you hadn't forseen. Or (2) If you make 100 measurements of a physical quantity and 99 fit a simple equation, you say the 100th is wrong, and the same should apply to 100 hypothetical ethical questions. However for the moment, I'll assume they should agree.

[3] Which is also why we can all live together. Though the more cynical might reverse that statement and say we evolved/were created to to live socially, and any philosophy we come up with has to produce that as it's result.

[4] The initial list will be expounded tomorrow. Sneak preview: Hapiness is good; Sadness (normally pain) is bad; Killing is bad; Justice is good; Intentions matter; Results matter; I am more important than other people; My family and friends are more important than other people; People closer are more important than other people; Children are more important than other people; Good people are more important than bad people; Causing badness is worse than allowing badness. (NB: a true utilitarian might weight the first 100% and the rest 0%, but I think people like that are in enough of a minority that the general view is better.)

[5] For me, an example is "if a run away mine cart with ten people in is heading for a cliff, and the only way to stop it was to push a bystander under the wheels killing him, would you?" The rules "an active act is worse than a passive one" and "more deaths are worse than fewer deaths" conflict. Of course, you're probably ok with this but have a different problematic question, whether you've thought of it or not. Or do you disagree?

Comments

[mair_in_grenderich]

what about jumping under the wheels yourself? that would be *heroic*, so that's ok.

Debate

[lockymclean.livejournal.com]

Do most philosophies agree with each other most of the time? I'll accept that for the majority of everyday transactions (is it right to brush my teeth, pay for my coffee, etc.) the issues are uncontroversial, but do you mean to say that most philosophies will agree on most situations where there is some morality in issue?

Anyway, what do you do when two rules conflict? My suggestion is that universally (or popularly at any rate) accepted laws must apply, even if they are secular and not religious, in order to prevent total social breakdown. For example, in the situation you gave in fn[5], English law would not condemn you for standing by and doing nothing, but you would be very hard pressed to justify pushing the person under the wheels. The only time in the history of English law where it was accepted as an argument was in the Siamese twins case ("Re: A (conjoined twins)") and that was pretty exceptional because the weaker twin was going to die anyway and the obvious utilitarian answer was very strong.

Interestingly enough, in French law you would possibly face prosecution for failing to throw yourself under the wheels as they have a doctrine of enforced altruism towards victims of misfortune!

I suppose the point of those last paragraphs is that at some stage laws have to be formulated prior to the event, and they inevitably have to be general in nature, or at least applied by analogy from existing cases, so you have to sit down beforehand with a general governing philosophy or series of weighted principles which will prevail whenever there is a conflict.

If you want to know why a law has to be formulated in advance, it is because it is a fundamental principle of law and punishment that a person can only be punished according to a law where they had an opportunity to know about it beforehand and modify their behaviour accordingly. In civil law cases where only money is at stake it is possible to be more flexible and result-orientated, but there must be some degree of certainty with criminal law where a person's liberty or life is at stake.

Well you said you wanted controversy...

[mair_in_grenderich]

The initial list will be expounded tomorrow.

tomorrow's taking its time coming